Warranty Length Not Related To Drive Life?

Ah, the SCSI drives are Quantum - they've always been good, in my
experience

Same here, but now they are a part of Maxtor and, consequently, I wasn't
sure if you meant they had deteriorated.

Thank you.

PM

"Johan Kullstam" wrote in message
...
"Ron Reaugh" writes:

Has anyone ever heard anyone claim that the length of a HD's warranty
was
simply a marketing and price point decision by the mfg and the warranty
length has nothing to do with expected drive life?

It cannot be *totally* unrelated. A manufacturer doesn't want a whole
lot of returns. You can expect that *most* drives will *at least*
make it through the warranty period.

Do ya think!

A hard drive is free to continue operation well past the warranty
expiration time. As far as I can tell, the 3 to 1 year standard ATA
warrenty shorting has had no impact on actual drive lifetimes.

Do ya think!

In article ,
Ron Reaugh writes

So in a pen
stroke a company could change its HD warranty length and even retroactively
without great exposure SINCE the drives were ALREADY going to last for 5
years anyway as I've always said.

Yes, just as you "always said" there was nothing wrong with the Deskstar
75GXPs. We know better now, don't we?

--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article ,
Ron Reaugh writes

So in a pen
stroke a company could change its HD warranty length and even
retroactively without great exposure SINCE the drives were ALREADY going
to last for 5 years anyway as I've always said.

Yes, just as you "always said" there was nothing wrong with the Deskstar
75GXPs. We know better now, don't we?

What's this "we", White Man? You have a mouse in your pocket?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Mike Tomlinson wrote in
:

Yes, just as you "always said" there was nothing wrong with the
Deskstar 75GXPs. We know better now, don't we?

Oooh, those were almost as nice as the 36LZX 18gig ultrastars. I had 50
servers delivered, each with one of those drives. I had about 60 exchanges
on them before my vendor started giving me seagates


--
/Jesper Monsted

In article 3,
Jesper Monsted wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote in
:
Yes, just as you "always said" there was nothing wrong with the
Deskstar 75GXPs. We know better now, don't we?

Oooh, those were almost as nice as the 36LZX 18gig ultrastars. I had 50
servers delivered, each with one of those drives. I had about 60 exchanges
on them before my vendor started giving me seagates

HP Surestore 2000. Six drives, ten failures, we finally gave up when we
called HP for a replacement and got routed to some noname 'support'
organization. Apperently they'd sold the whole drive business, lock, stock,
and warranty.

--
I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs
of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All
these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-'
Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U`

Nonsense. It's the opposite for the first three years: over 1% in first year,
under 1% in next two.

"Michael Giegerich" wrote in message
...

As with any product the percentage of failures will
increase over time; e.g. .5 % during first, 1 % du-
ring second and 2 % during third year of life.

Thus increasing the warranty time does indeed cost
money...

In article , Michael Giegerich
writes

Believe me, the rate goes up ... (until no drive will
work anymore, i.e. 100 % failures; just wait - may
take a few years, but it will go there :-)

It's usually taken for granted that the failure rate is plotted as a
"bathtub" curve. Here's an attempt at ASCII - view with a monospaced
font:


r |
e |
l |
i | ___________________________________________
a | / \
b | / \
i | / \
l | / \
i | / \
t | / \
y | / \
+--------------------------------------------------------------
time
^ ^ ^ ^
1 2 3 4


The x-axis is time, the y-axis is failure rate.

What this says is that drive failure is high in their infancy (between
points 1 and 2). If they see out infancy, they tend to continue working
(between points 2 and 3) until they reach some point at which they wear
out, then failure rates increase (between points 3 and 4.)

Traditionally, the gap between points 2 and 3 has been three years for
consumer-level (=IDE) drives, and five years for high-end (=SCSI)
drives, coinciding with the typical warranty period offered on these
devices. Of course, this is generalising wildly and depends very much
on how the drive is treated prior to installation, its operating
conditions, etc. etc.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

Mike Tomlinson wrote in
:

the y-axis is failure rate

....which means the 'curve' is upside down, but I can guess what you
intended: reliability = 1/failure rate ???

Michael Giegerich wrote:

Eric Gisin:
Nonsense. It's the opposite for the first three years: over 1% in first
year, under 1% in next two.

Assuming you're right, after how many years the failure
rate would have come down to 0 % then?

Believe me, the rate goes up ... (until no drive will
work anymore, i.e. 100 % failures; just wait - may
take a few years, but it will go there :-)

Common phenomenon with electronics of any kind--a high rate of "infant
mortality" in the first few months of operation, then a relatively low
failure rate until pieces start dying of old age.

"Michael Giegerich" wrote in message
...

As with any product the percentage of failures will
increase over time; e.g. .5 % during first, 1 % du-
ring second and 2 % during third year of life.

Thus increasing the warranty time does indeed cost
money...


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)